[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Doing a proper package split (cream)

Justin, thanks for your reply.

On Friday 10 March 2006 16:39, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> You probably want to make a new dummy package, one which I guess will
> have just copyright and changelog files, will be named "cream", and
> will have Depends: cream-doc, cream-program.  This will cause existing
> cream installations to have the same things included in them, though
> by different packages.

Yes, that case looks simpler:

cream ----(split)---> cream-main + cream-doc

In this case 'cream' would just become a dummy package. To my eyes that's 
still a bit ugly. If possible I'd wish for:

cream ----(split)---> cream + cream-doc

> Also, if cream had conffiles which changed across the upgrade, you
> would have to deal specially with them; "transferring ownership of
> conffiles", see my bugs #345112 and friends..

True. If the latter alternative would somehow work I wouldn't need to 
transfer the conffiles to a new package because it would remain in 

> In any case, you can and should always drop the upgrade foo after the
> next stable release.

Another issue I would like to avoid because I'll surely forget to remove 
that cruft. :) A "good once and for all" solution would make me happier.
But it actually looks like the solution you proposed is more common.

I wonder if my proposal causes any bad things to happen. It would be very 
unlikely that a user just installed the new 'cream-doc' package without 
upgrading the 'cream' package. And since 'cream' and 'cream-doc' wouldn't 
have any hard dependencies (like "Depends:" instead of "Suggests:") in the 
future either there may well be situations where the documentation package 
could have another version than the main package.

".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%--                1,48         All

Reply to: